Posted on 10/22/2006 4:28:56 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
Not since the medieval church baptized, as it were, Aristotle as some sort of early very early church father has there been an intellectual hijacking as audacious as the attempt to present Americas principal founders as devout Christians. Such an attempt is now in high gear among people who argue that the founders were kindred spirits with todays evangelicals, and that they founded a Christian nation.
This irritates Brooke Allen, an author and critic who has distilled her annoyance into Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers. It is a wonderfully high-spirited and informative polemic that, as polemics often do, occasionally goes too far. Her thesis is that the six most important founders Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton subscribed, in different ways, to the watery and undemanding Enlightenment faith called deism. That doctrine appealed to rationalists by being explanatory but not inciting: it made the universe intelligible without arousing dangerous zeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
None of this actually seems to be substantiated by the link. Were all (or most) of his original quotes unsupported?
Yes. Another interesting discussion of Mr. Barton's dubious historical revisionism can be found here:
http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm
The list of quotes that Mr. Barton concedes to be either false or questionable is found at the bottom of the article, at sec. 11.
You are seeking to besmirch the reputation of a man that I know to be of the highest integrity. And his work has been shown to be of the highest quality.
So as I asked above, please send me links to these alleged "refutation" articles, and I will consider them.
In a nutshell, many of his quotes were from academics, PhD's, and historians. Discovering a weakness in some of their scholarship, he made the decision to withdraw quotes from any secondary sources, and use only primary, original sources. Having made that decision, previous quotes were withdrawn, not because they were false, necessarily, but because they couldn't be substantiated by the original, primary sources.
As I said, contra to your assertions, this seems to raise Barton's level of integrity, not lower it. My next entry will give you some links to his web site were he explains his rationale. [NB: good scholarship demands you check both sides of an issue, and not simply the side that substantiates your pre-judged position.]
See my post at #44
I have found your link, but I would not characterize it as "mealy-mouthed." And I don't understand how you can do so. Barton sought to raise the academic standard, not weasel out of a position previously held.
I gave you a link to it.
My next entry will give you some links to his web site were he explains his rationale.
Thank-you, but I already have those links. Which explains why I was able to give them to you.
I have found your link, but I would not characterize it as "mealy-mouthed."
Again, I gave you a link to it. Point, click. Why is this so difficult?
Barton sought to raise the academic standard, not weasel out of a position previously held.
I don't know. I just don't view it as "raising the academic standard" when you concede that your prior "scholarship" was bogus, and do so only after others have pointed out its marked deficiencies.
You are seeking to besmirch the reputation of a man that I know to be of the highest integrity. And his work has been shown to be of the highest quality.
His work has been shown to be shoddy at best.
So as I asked above, please send me links to these alleged "refutation" articles, and I will consider them.
Right. Consider, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And please note that additional links are embedded within these links.
I'm sure you will find the critiques of Mr. Barton's scholarship unsatisfactory, but note that it was in direct response to these critiques that Mr. Barton belatedly decided that revision of his previous historical revisionism was necessary. And you will also note that Mr. Barton has only partially addressed the issues raised in these critiques.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.